Page 11 - Demo

www.porknews.com.au Australian Pork Newspaper, February 2025 %u2013 Page 11FOLLOWING is a rejoinder to the Letter to the Editor from Andree Rowntree published in Australian Pork Newspaper Vol 29 No 1 January 2025. This rejoinder responds to the various questions and thoughts posed by Andree Rowntree in relation to the SunPork%u2019s Frontiers in Veterinary Science study %u2018A five domains assessment of sow welfare in a novel free farrowing system%u2019 and the maternity ring feature on ABC%u2019s Landline program.The research to develop the maternity ring farrowing system that spanned 10 years was undertaken to ensure a viable alternative to farrowing crates in commercial production systems. The maternity ring was designed with careful thought and consideration for the sow, piglet and stockperson%u2019s wellbeing. We are working our way to getting this significant body of research peer reviewed and published.To the first point: There were only 171 sows in the study and of those only about 30 were filmed.This is a very small group on which to base decisions or describe as %u2018robust%u2019 science.The sample size used for behavioural observations in the maternity ring manuscript is adequate %u2013 the sample size used was determined using statistical power factor analysis based on the parameters being assessed. The results presented were statistically significant and hence accepted for publication.To the second point: The study was conducted over only two short periods, both in summer.Winter usually has higher pre-wean mortalities.Incorrect. This is absolutely the opposite in free farrowing systems. Summer is worse because you cannot get piglets to use the creep (stay in the creep), resulting in more overlays and higher mortality. This is supported by numerous studies conducted in Australia. To the third point: The sows and piglets in the maternity ring crates had two heat sources %u2013 a lamp and a mat for piglets, whereas the piglets in farrowing crates had only one source of heat %u2013 a lamp. Additional management practices used for the maternity ring crates make the study a bit unbalanced.A light was used in the MR, not a lamp. But yes, MR had a heat mat and crates a heat lamp. We now know that actually, the lamps in the crates are better! So, we no longer use the mats in current prototypes.To the fourth point: The group in farrowing crates are reported to have 70 percent with udder damage on leaving the crate.I am not aware of udder damage to anywhere near 70 percent of sows in normal farrowing crates. We did not think this was the case, but you will be surprised if you take time to inspect sows in farrowing crates. The reported incidence does include minor to severe damage. The accompanying table %u2013 taken from Sorensen et al (2016) using larger sample size, 57 Danish farms %u2013 aligns with our findings.To the fifth point: Another measure of sow welfare included in the study were facial scratches.I am not aware of facial scratches being an issue within commercial herds.Again, you will be surprised. This feedback is similar to that from some of our farms, which, after we explained walking through a farrowing shed, is retracted.We are more than happy to share many videos of redirected nesting behaviours that result in the injuries scored the day after farrowing.We have an Australasian Pig Science Association paper on facial injuries where incidence of score > 0 is 60 percent %u2013 sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2772283X21003484Accompanying is a photo that shows a sow with the type of injuries measured.To the sixth point: Other measures of welfare used in the study %u2013 nesting and bar biting %u2013 are only suggestive of welfare issues, according to the study.We disagree. There are too many publications to list that state not allowing the sows to nest build results in stereotypies such as bar biting and these are accepted welfare issues. Stereotypic behaviours often develop in environments that independent evidence shows cause poor welfare. Thus, the development of stereotypies indicates that wellbeing has probably been poor, with the animal motivated to show a behaviour pattern that it could not perform normally or to completion.To the seventh point: The study states frustration behaviours were not different between the groups.Nor were the presence of shoulder sores.Correct.To the eight point: Is it correct that the sows in farrowing crates weaned 1.5 extra pigs %u2013 though these were excluded from the study for being underweight and were fostered?This wasn%u2019t mentioned on Landline.The first paper was never intended to measure sow productivity, but TURN AN INVISIBLE ENEMY INTO A VISIBLE PROFITPorcilis Lawsonia is the first injectable vaccine in Australia to control Ileitis.For further information, call Customer Service on 1800 033 461.%u00aeRegistered trademarks. Intervet Australian Pty Ltd (trading as MSD Animal Health). ABN: 79008467034. Copyright %u00a9 2024 Merck & Co., Inc., Rahway, NJ, USA and its affiliates. All rights reserved.PROVEN TO:REDUCE LOSS OF AVERAGE DAILY WEIGHTREDUCE MORTALITYREDUCE BACTERIAL SHEDDINGREDUCE DIARRHOEA AND INTESTINAL LESIONS.Letter to the Editor It is the responsibility of those making submissions to ensure the correctness of their claims and statements. The views expressed in this publication are not necessarily those of the publisher.A photo that shows a sow with the type of injuries measured.Effects of being a nurse sow compared with a non-nurse sow on eight sow welfare parameters.* continued P12